3 ms·

One infringes on a specific constitutional right. Also, this country would get even more dangerous without good citizens owning guns. IMO it's like herd immun

One infringes on a specific constitutional right. Also, this country would get even more dangerous without good citizens owning guns. IMO it's like herd immunity. Not everyone has guns. But the criminals don't know who does and who doesn't, so in a way they treat all homes as potentially being armed. Our criminals are already pretty care free, I can't imagine how much worse it would be if they KNEW no one was armed.

antinomicus 4mo ago
[flagged]
- throwaway85825 4mo ago
  [flagged]
EmoteSupportBot 4mo ago
The brainwashing is truly staggering isn't it?
- Cider9986 4mo ago
  A waste of an aged account.
mindslight 4mo ago
While there is some truth here, it's worth noting that firearms are far from a deterrent - these days, many criminals are often enraged by a victim having a gun and end up escalating further. Earlier this year there was a gang execution in Minneapolis that was prominent national news. The thugs were probably just going to kick the shit out of the victim, but when they discovered he merely had a gun, they took it from him and then held him down and shot him repeatedly in the back. Or there was another famous killing in Louisville about 6 years back. It started off as a simple night time home invasion but when one of the residents started to defend themselves by firing a warning shot, the perps responded by turning the home into a shooting gallery and ended up killing the other resident. So these days it's more of a toss up because we're not in the Wild West or even Paul Kersey's cities, but rather subject to highly organized crime that demands supplicating obedience and will readily retaliate against anyone who tries to defend themselves.
- DivingForGold 4mo ago
  If the homeowners had a shotgun it would have been over quickly. Shotguns don't miss.
  - mindslight 4mo ago
    There were like seven assailants, and the shot actually did hit one of them in the leg. This is what caused the others to retaliate. I don't think a shotgun would have helped. Unfortunately the incident was not a game of DOOM.
    - throwaway85825 4mo ago
      If anything that is an argument for extended magazines.
      - mindslight 4mo ago
        At a certain point numbers just don't work out that way. Being woken up in the middle of the night and facing seven alert and well-prepared attackers? Good luck. The real problem is the corrupt politically-motivated DA who declined to even charge most of the perps. Only one of them got any jail time. The others are still out on our streets. Individual action can help mitigate, but it can't make up for the trend of politicians accepting and normalizing violent crime.
        hurtigioll 4mo ago
        full auto, defensive grenades
        mindslight 4mo ago
        Plasma rifle might be able to pull it off.
        4mo ago
prmoustache 4mo ago
Doh, the ones who own the guns are the criminal. If not today, one day in the future. Most women who own a firearm and get shot are shot with their own firearm. Firearms in an household with kids need to be locked out for the safety of all, rendering them useless if someone in a family is in threat of being harmed. There is virtually zero situation where it would help the family. Trying to stop a robbery is the best way to get shot, armed or not. One is always better off letting the thieves go and get compensation from insurance. Weapons im your household only increase the chance of someone in the household killing their spouse/siblings/parents without increasing the safety against criminals outside. Gun owners who pretend to arm themselves against crime are really converting themselves into potential criminals. One can be mentally ok at the date of purchase but nobody can be 100% sure their mental health will stay the same all their life and we can't expect them to surrender their firearms when needed. Thus it should be a crime in itself to purchase guns.
ajross 4mo ago
> One infringes on a specific constitutional right. The ability to develop and use technological products is, y'know, kinda protected speech under the first amendment. Congress shall make no law... unless you're talking about stuff we think is dangerous; in that case foreigners can't say it and you can't tell them.
bloggie 4mo ago
I'm not American so maybe I'm missing something, but doesn't the Constitution apply to all citizens? Is it not then unconstitutional to prevent federal inmates from possessing firearms while incarcerated?
- throwawaytea 4mo ago
  Yes you lose many of your rights when in prison.
- e44858 4mo ago
  Not all citizens have the right to freedom: "except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted" https://www.senate.gov/about/origins-foundations/senate-and-constitution/constitution.htm#amdt_13_(1865) https://www.senate.gov/about/origins-foundations/senate-and-...

antinomicus 4mo ago

[flagged]

throwaway85825 4mo ago
[flagged]

EmoteSupportBot 4mo ago

The brainwashing is truly staggering isn't it?

Cider9986 4mo ago
A waste of an aged account.

mindslight 4mo ago

While there is some truth here, it's worth noting that firearms are far from a deterrent - these days, many criminals are often enraged by a victim having a gun and end up escalating further. Earlier this year there was a gang execution in Minneapolis that was prominent national news. The thugs were probably just going to kick the shit out of the victim, but when they discovered he merely had a gun, they took it from him and then held him down and shot him repeatedly in the back. Or there was another famous killing in Louisville about 6 years back. It started off as a simple night time home invasion but when one of the residents started to defend themselves by firing a warning shot, the perps responded by turning the home into a shooting gallery and ended up killing the other resident. So these days it's more of a toss up because we're not in the Wild West or even Paul Kersey's cities, but rather subject to highly organized crime that demands supplicating obedience and will readily retaliate against anyone who tries to defend themselves.

DivingForGold 4mo ago
If the homeowners had a shotgun it would have been over quickly. Shotguns don't miss.
- mindslight 4mo ago
  There were like seven assailants, and the shot actually did hit one of them in the leg. This is what caused the others to retaliate. I don't think a shotgun would have helped. Unfortunately the incident was not a game of DOOM.
  - throwaway85825 4mo ago
    If anything that is an argument for extended magazines.
    - mindslight 4mo ago
      At a certain point numbers just don't work out that way. Being woken up in the middle of the night and facing seven alert and well-prepared attackers? Good luck. The real problem is the corrupt politically-motivated DA who declined to even charge most of the perps. Only one of them got any jail time. The others are still out on our streets. Individual action can help mitigate, but it can't make up for the trend of politicians accepting and normalizing violent crime.
      - hurtigioll 4mo ago
        full auto, defensive grenades
        mindslight 4mo ago
        Plasma rifle might be able to pull it off.
        4mo ago

prmoustache 4mo ago

Doh, the ones who own the guns are the criminal. If not today, one day in the future. Most women who own a firearm and get shot are shot with their own firearm. Firearms in an household with kids need to be locked out for the safety of all, rendering them useless if someone in a family is in threat of being harmed. There is virtually zero situation where it would help the family. Trying to stop a robbery is the best way to get shot, armed or not. One is always better off letting the thieves go and get compensation from insurance. Weapons im your household only increase the chance of someone in the household killing their spouse/siblings/parents without increasing the safety against criminals outside. Gun owners who pretend to arm themselves against crime are really converting themselves into potential criminals. One can be mentally ok at the date of purchase but nobody can be 100% sure their mental health will stay the same all their life and we can't expect them to surrender their firearms when needed. Thus it should be a crime in itself to purchase guns.

ajross 4mo ago

> One infringes on a specific constitutional right. The ability to develop and use technological products is, y'know, kinda protected speech under the first amendment. Congress shall make no law... unless you're talking about stuff we think is dangerous; in that case foreigners can't say it and you can't tell them.

bloggie 4mo ago

I'm not American so maybe I'm missing something, but doesn't the Constitution apply to all citizens? Is it not then unconstitutional to prevent federal inmates from possessing firearms while incarcerated?

throwawaytea 4mo ago
Yes you lose many of your rights when in prison.
e44858 4mo ago
Not all citizens have the right to freedom: "except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted" https://www.senate.gov/about/origins-foundations/senate-and-constitution/constitution.htm#amdt_13_(1865) https://www.senate.gov/about/origins-foundations/senate-and-...